The Muthaship:Satanic_Hamster: The Muthaship: SPLC requirements for being labeled a hate group:

1. Fail to fully support the agenda of the SPLC with every word and deed.

Citation please.

There are tons of articles that cover it. But, this is my opinion. You are not obligated to either read the articles nor agree with me. The FRC made the list for being advocates of traditional marriage. That led to a shooting. But, the list is a cash cow for the SPLC, so it grows.

In 2003, former Marine and Louisiana state representative Anthony Richard "Tony" Perkins became president of the FRC after a failed 2002 run for one of Louisiana's U.S. Senate seats. Under his leadership, the group continues to peddle its false claims about homosexuality and has made combating the "homosexual agenda" a seemingly obsessive interest.

In 1996, while managing the U.S. Senate campaign of Woody Jenkins against Mary Landrieu, Perkins paid $82,500 to use the mailing list of former Klan chieftain Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), a white supremacist group that has described black people as a "retrograde species of humanity." Perkins claimed not to know the group's ideology at the time, but it had been widely publicized in Louisiana and the nation, because in 1999 - two years before Perkins' speech to the CCC - Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott had been embroiled in a national scandal over his ties to the group. GOP chairman Jim Nicholson then urged Republicans to avoid the CCC because of its "racist views."

I think it would be awesome to have a "Dumbass" button next to "Smart" and "Funny" on each post - once you accumulate a certain number of dumbass points, your posts are automatically hidden like you were ignorelisted.

The Muthaship:what_now: But if you start defending the Family Research Counsel, you're going to get pushback.

Not defending them, honestly. I disagree with everything they say. But, I don't think they are a hate group. They are fundies for sure. They believe homosexuality is a sin. They believe same sex marriage is a sin. I still can't find anything credible that said they advocate violence of any kind. The SPLC plays fast and loose with their labeling because it drives donations. Unfortunately, it has consequences, too. And, IMO, it casts them in a bad light.

The Muthaship:Satanic_Hamster: The Muthaship: SPLC requirements for being labeled a hate group:

1. Fail to fully support the agenda of the SPLC with every word and deed.

Citation please.

There are tons of articles that cover it. But, this is my opinion. You are not obligated to either read the articles nor agree with me. The FRC made the list for being advocates of traditional marriage. That led to a shooting. But, the list is a cash cow for the SPLC, so it grows.

"The videos are titled 'It Gets Better.' They are aimed at persuading kids that although they'll face struggles and perhaps bullying for 'coming out' as homosexual (or transgendered or some other perversion), life will get better. ...It's disgusting. And it's part of a concerted effort to persuade kids that homosexuality is okay and actually to recruit them into that lifestyle."- Tony Perkins, FRC fundraising letter, August 2011

"Those who understand the homosexual community-the activists-they're very aggressive, they're-everything they accuse us of they are in triplicate. They're intolerant, they're hateful, vile, they're spiteful. .... To me, that is the height of hatred, to be silent when we know there are individuals that are engaged in activity, behavior, and an agenda that will destroy them and our nation."-Tony Perkins, Speaking to the Oak Initiative Summit, April 2011

"We believe the evidence shows ... that relative to the size of their population, homosexual men are more likely to engage in child sexual abuse than are heterosexual men."- Peter Sprigg, "Debating Homosexuality: Understanding Two Views." 2011.

"While activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. ... It is a homosexual problem."- FRC President Tony Perkins, FRC website, 2010

"[W]elcoming open homosexuality in the military would clearly damage the readiness and effectiveness of the force - in part because it would increase the already serious problem of homosexual assault in the military."- Peter Sprigg, "Homosexual Assault in the Military," 2010

"A little-reported fact is that homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households."-- Timothy Dailey, FRC publication, "Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk," 2002

"Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement."- Robert Knight, FRC director of cultural studies, and Frank York, 1999

"One of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the 'prophets' of a new sexual order."-1999 FRC publication, "Homosexual Behavior and Pedophilia," Robert Knight and Frank York

adamgreeney:So you're saying that McVeigh wouldn't have committed OKC without Waco, and would have just carried on with his life and been a happy dude? Come on. Anyone willing to commit murder on that scale is farked up to begin with. He would have found another "justification" for his acts. You're better than this.

whoa whoa whoa, I merely pointed out that waco was McVeigh's motivation (his words). He'd probably find something else, but that was his "last straw"

Dancin_In_Anson:EyeballKid: The guy on the right, a failed musician who "turned to God," blamed the government for his shortcomings, so he let a bunch of innocent women and children be killed in Waco

Do whut?

EyeballKid: the fellow to the left, a failed soldier who couldn't find work, blamed the government for his shortcomings, and he decided to show that mean ol' gubmint what's what by killing a bunch of women and children in Oklahoma City.

Actually his motivation in part was Waco. Does this justify his actions? Not in any way shape or form, however, had AFT picked Jebus Wannabe on his daily jog instead of busting into a compound full of his armed followers, chances are, 85 men women and children would not have been killed and at least one of his government demons would not have existed. Without Waco, chances are you wouldn't have OKC.

Whiskey Pete: * yawn *

Exactly.

Whiskey Pete: And we have a halfwit on here defending both of them.

Where? This guy?

somedude210: But I won't deny that OC was inspired by Waco

So you're saying that McVeigh wouldn't have committed OKC without Waco, and would have just carried on with his life and been a happy dude? Come on. Anyone willing to commit murder on that scale is farked up to begin with. He would have found another "justification" for his acts. You're better than this.

The Muthaship:There are tons of articles that cover it. But, this is my opinion. You are not obligated to either read the articles nor agree with me. The FRC made the list for being advocates of traditional marriage. That led to a shooting. But, the list is a cash cow for the SPLC, so it grows.

Really? I was under the impression it was because they advocated violence, incarceration, and hatred of homosexuals and due to their constant demonizing of gays, including claiming that all gays plan to rape children.

Dancin_In_Anson:what_now: It bothered him so much he blew up 168 American citizens?

The sickening irony does not escape me either.

His methods could be criticized, but I am sure his intentions were sincerely patriotic. He was simply doing whatever was in his power to preserve America (Land of the Free and Home of the Brave), by performing an act of resistance against the jackbooted thuggery of the vast left wing liberal conspiracy to subvert the government of the American people, by the American people, and for the American people, and to hand over the reins of power to the UN.

I'm not saying those people individually deserved what they got. But by working for the federal government, they were willing collaborators with the vast left wing conspiracy; little Eichmanns. And in war, collateral damage sometimes happens. McVeigh was trying to blow up a Federal building, it wasn't his fault there were people inside. Isn't that the rationale you libs use when you defend 0bama's cowardly drone strikes?

I'm not necessarily defending McVeigh, not in public. I'm just asking questions. But you can see why, in the face of liberal tyranny, why doing that might have made sense. Assuming it was his idea, and that it wasn't a false flag operation conducted by the CIA, MK-ULTRA, ACORN, and George Soros to justify rounding up real American patriots, of course.

The Muthaship:what_now: But if you start defending the Family Research Counsel, you're going to get pushback.

Not defending them, honestly. I disagree with everything they say. But, I don't think they are a hate group. They are fundies for sure. They believe homosexuality is a sin. They believe same sex marriage is a sin. I still can't find anything credible that said they advocate violence of any kind. The SPLC plays fast and loose with their labeling because it drives donations. Unfortunately, it has consequences, too. And, IMO, it casts them in a bad light.

I don't think that the SPLC ever stated that an organization needed to advocate violence to be on the list. You might think the list is too expansive, but I think it would be inaccurate to say they are "fast and loose" as to who goes on the list.

The Muthaship:Satanic_Hamster: The Muthaship: SPLC requirements for being labeled a hate group:

1. Fail to fully support the agenda of the SPLC with every word and deed.

Citation please.

There are tons of articles that cover it. But, this is my opinion. You are not obligated to either read the articles nor agree with me. The FRC made the list for being advocates of traditional marriage. That led to a shooting. But, the list is a cash cow for the SPLC, so it grows.

Typing "Sorry, upon further reflection I must admit that I do, indeed have nothing" would have saved you some effort and avoided racking up Derp points

Dancin_In_Anson:I dunno. He was at Waco and watched 76 American citizens get cooked as it happened. If that doesn't bother you a little, you're one farked up individual. I guess it more than bothered him. But once again...does this justify his actions? Not in any way, shape or form.

But considering how the internet has become a giant witchhunt for "racists", I think the goalposts were just moved in a little to make it a little easier. "Racist" now includes not only all republicans, but even nominal independents like myself who value sh*t President Obama doesn't. Like fiscal responsibility, keeping campaign promises, and muh freedoms. Because if you aren't an apologist for Obama's incompetence, you're part of a f*cking hate group.

It's not that people who disagree with Obama are racist. It's simple: prominent members of the Republican Party have said the Voting Rights Act should be repealed. The official Republican Party platform is misogynistic and homophobic. Every male Republican in the Senate voted against an amendment that allowed defense contractors to be sued for allowing rape.

If you vote for the Republican Party you either support these points, or don't find them so objectionable as to remove your support. Therefore, you're either actively racist/homophobic/misogynistic or don't think racism/homophobia/misogyny is so bad as to justify voting for another party.

This is especially inane when the other party has a demonstrably better record on protecting "yuh freedoms" and fiscal responsibility.

But considering how the internet has become a giant witchhunt for "racists", I think the goalposts were just moved in a little to make it a little easier. "Racist" now includes not only all republicans, but even nominal independents like myself who value sh*t President Obama doesn't. Like fiscal responsibility, keeping campaign promises, and muh freedoms. Because if you aren't an apologist for Obama's incompetence, you're part of a f*cking hate group.

A) who are you talking to?B) Neither all Republicans or all Independents have been labeled as racists in any Fark thread I've ever seenC) if your part of a hate group, you are part of a hate group

somedude210:Dancin_In_Anson: Funny you mention those two. Tell me what happened to the guy on the right and how that may have inspired the one on the left.

Have you ever read Them: Adventures with Extremists? It's a good book and sums this stuff up nicely.

But I won't deny that OC was inspired by Waco

I'm pretty sure it was inspired by The Turner Diaries, with a sprinkling of Ruby Ridge and a dash of Waco. I know it was the Waco anniversary, but I bet McVeigh would try to kill Koresh if we ThunderDomed them.

But considering how the internet has become a giant witchhunt for "racists", I think the goalposts were just moved in a little to make it a little easier. "Racist" now includes not only all republicans, but even nominal independents like myself who value sh*t President Obama doesn't. Like fiscal responsibility, keeping campaign promises, and muh freedoms. Because if you aren't an apologist for Obama's incompetence, you're part of a f*cking hate group.

Dancin_In_Anson:adamgreeney: And you don't think he would have found another motivation?

I dunno. He was at Waco and watched 76 American citizens get cooked as it happened. If that doesn't bother you a little, you're one farked up individual.

If that inspires you to blame the government (instead of the lunatic cult leader who intentionally martyred himself and his followers) and blow up a building, then you're an even MORE farked up individual.

The Muthaship:You guys really can't take a little dissent in the CJ, can you?

Farkers are mostly fine with dissent. However, if you can't give an well-informed, evidence-based, logically reasoned basis for the dissent, they won't dignify your position with anything beyond mockery and LOL-cat pictures.

The Muthaship:what_now: The Westboro Baptist Church doesn't advocate violence either.

They are more of a hate the sinner and the sin group, it seems to me. The FRC, deluded as they are, seems like they are just against the sin.

The FRC lobbied congress to NOT pass a resolution decrying the Ugandan "kill the gays" bill (now the "imprison gays for life") bill. Tony Perkins has also praised the Ugandan President for his stands on morality, though he denies that it's about this particular set of morality in particular.

They may not actively be advocating killing gay people, but they are treading into "won't someone rid me of these meddlesome queers" territory.

Dancin_In_Anson:adamgreeney: So you're saying that McVeigh wouldn't have committed OKC without Waco

I'm thinking it would have removed one of his primary motivators (Ruby Ridge was another)

EyeballKid: And had those evil dogs not corrupted sweet, impressionable David Berkowitz.

Not even in the same ballpark, son.

somedude210: McVagh said that what the government did at Waco inspired him to commit OC

I know. Quoting you was directed to the guy that called me (and ostensibly you) a "halfwit" and accusing us of somehow defending McVeigh for pointing out that he did indeed state that Waco was one of his motivations.

And you don't think he would have found another motivation? Really? He would have just moved on and never planted a bomb?

Listen, I know as a crazy person it's hard to dissect how your people think, but he was intent on mass murder. He would have found another "reason." Waco really had nothing to do with it. There would have been another event or "slight" that he would have picked up and carried out the bombing anyway.

cirby:Heck, one of the "hate groups" SPLC lists is a blog by a woman who criticizes Islam. Listed as a "hate group," and it's one person. Not a particularly hateful blog, either

Fark is well aware of Pamela Geller and her activism in the "Conservative" movement. In the age of the Internet, evil charismatic people can amass quite a following. You can ask Grover Norquist about that.

1) Waco was not his only motivation..he also cited other incidents, and he attempted to forge links with Elohim City in OK. 2) It might not be the best policy to take mass murderers immediately at their word without some sort of suspicion.

blastoh:Slaves2Darkness: Awww ... just like the last time a Democrat was president.

Yeah, these people still have the democrat=liberal=socialist=communist=facists=dictator=hitler mentality. So anytime there is a democrat in office they panic.The fact that the president is a Black Demcrat with a funny name only adds to their fears.

Yeah, I remember NPR interviewed one of the guys that runs Stormfront or one of the other RW hate groups who was excited that we had a black president.

He was excited because it was going to drive membership to groups like his.

Dancin_In_Anson:however, had AFT picked Jebus Wannabe on his daily jog instead of busting into a compound full of his armed followers, chances are, 85 men women and children would not have been killed and at least one of his government demons would not have existed. Without Waco, chances are you wouldn't have OKC

and if the US hadn't had based in Saudia Arabia, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

There is value in figuring out why people do terrible things, but at the end of the day, you need to blame the terrible people.

EyeballKid:The guy on the right, a failed musician who "turned to God," blamed the government for his shortcomings, so he let a bunch of innocent women and children be killed in Waco

Do whut?

EyeballKid:the fellow to the left, a failed soldier who couldn't find work, blamed the government for his shortcomings, and he decided to show that mean ol' gubmint what's what by killing a bunch of women and children in Oklahoma City.

Actually his motivation in part was Waco. Does this justify his actions? Not in any way shape or form, however, had AFT picked Jebus Wannabe on his daily jog instead of busting into a compound full of his armed followers, chances are, 85 men women and children would not have been killed and at least one of his government demons would not have existed. Without Waco, chances are you wouldn't have OKC.

EyeballKid:Dancin_In_Anson: Funny you mention those two. Tell me what happened to the guy on the right and how that may have inspired the one on the left.

The guy on the right, a failed musician who "turned to God," blamed the government for his shortcomings, so he let a bunch of innocent women and children be killed in Waco so his messiah complex could meet a self-fulfilling prophecy; the fellow to the left, a failed soldier who couldn't find work, blamed the government for his shortcomings, and he decided to show that mean ol' gubmint what's what by killing a bunch of women and children in Oklahoma City.

And the biggest tragedy of Dave Koresh and Tim McVeigh is that had they managed to stay alive to now, there's a strong likelihood they'd have been strong contenders for the 2016 Tea Party ticket.

The Muthaship:what_now: The Westboro Baptist Church doesn't advocate violence either.

They are more of a hate the sinner and the sin group, it seems to me. The FRC, deluded as they are, seems like they are just against the sin.

Using phony studies and outright lies to claim that homosexuals sexually abuse children at astronomical rates is not "just against the sin." It is slander, and particularly vile, hateful slander at that.

The SPLC specifically mentions they do NOT list groups that merely base their beliefs on biblical scripture.

Dancin_In_Anson:Funny you mention those two. Tell me what happened to the guy on the right and how that may have inspired the one on the left.

The guy on the right, a failed musician who "turned to God," blamed the government for his shortcomings, so he let a bunch of innocent women and children be killed in Waco so his messiah complex could meet a self-fulfilling prophecy; the fellow to the left, a failed soldier who couldn't find work, blamed the government for his shortcomings, and he decided to show that mean ol' gubmint what's what by killing a bunch of women and children in Oklahoma City.

Do you mean, were there religious fundamentalist "the gubmint gon' git mah guns" Chicken Littles who armed themselves to the teeth and endangered the lives of others for the sake of pushing their bullshiat narrative?

No, there wasn't an influx of Muslims into the mid-South in 1995, plus 9/11 hadn't happened yet so rednecks hadn't added Muslims to the list of peoples who make them piss their pants like a bunch of cowards. If anything this rise in groups is the natural mechanics of demographic change in the area.

Statements on homosexualityAccording to the Family Research Council, "homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed" and it is "by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects."[19] The Council also asserts that "there is no convincing evidence that a homosexual identity is ever something genetic or inborn".[19] An , the case that overturned sodomy laws on privacy grounds.[20] The summary of the amicus curiae brief declares that "States may discourage the 'evils' ... of sexual acts outside of marriage by means up to and including criminal prohibition" and that it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council#cite_note-21">[21 ] acts".[22] Similar positions have been advocated by representatives of the organisation since the Supreme Court case was decided in 2003.

In February 2010, the Family Research Council's Senior Researcher for Policy Studies, [25][26] Perkins repeated the FRC's association of gay men with pedophilia, stating: "If you look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council#cite_note-Nov29Ha rdball-25">[25][26] The opinions expressed by Perkins are contradicted by mainstream social science research on same-sex parenting,[27] and on the likelihood of child molestation by homosexuals and [27][28] Some scientists whose work is cited by the American College of Pediatricians - a small conservative organization which was formed when the [29] The opinions and statements made by Sprigg and Perkins in 2010 contributed to the decision by the Intelligence Report.[30]

The Muthaship:Satanic_Hamster: The Muthaship: SPLC requirements for being labeled a hate group:

1. Fail to fully support the agenda of the SPLC with every word and deed.

Citation please.

There are tons of articles that cover it. But, this is my opinion. You are not obligated to either read the articles nor agree with me. The FRC made the list for being advocates of traditional marriage. That led to a shooting. But, the list is a cash cow for the SPLC, so it grows.

Satanic_Hamster:The Muthaship: SPLC requirements for being labeled a hate group:

1. Fail to fully support the agenda of the SPLC with every word and deed.

Citation please.

There are tons of articles that cover it. But, this is my opinion. You are not obligated to either read the articles nor agree with me. The FRC made the list for being advocates of traditional marriage. That led to a shooting. But, the list is a cash cow for the SPLC, so it grows.